Talent: Art's romantic "red herring"
Part II
After reading Part I of Talent: Art's romantic "red herring"
you are probably wondering why I am so adamant about the talent myth. Well, it is because the notion of pre-ordained talent, while it may be Romantically and intuitively attractive, creates needless barriers to anyone who really wants to participate in creative activities, be it music or anything else, but who isn't necessarily a "quick study." It also lets a lot of people, many of them teachers, off the hook.
Ascribing musical achievement primarily to talent is troubling because it discounts the hours of dedication and hard work that goes into achieving success: hours of study and practice EVERY successful musician must put in. The inference is that "talent" gives one a sort free pass to success and it's virtually pointless for the so-called "lesser talented" or "untalented" student to even make an attempt.
The truth is that motivation and discipline are far more important than so-called talent. There is no prerequisite talent level attached to 10,000-hour rule: it reflects motivation and commitment. I see it consistently among my students - the students who are committed achieve more. They may take longer than others to reach their goal (often because they havea higher goal), but they do reach it and many of them exceed it. In the end, they truly enjoy the pay off more.
Let's be clear, when I say discipline and persistence, I am not advocating mindless practising. We should by now be smarter than previous generations were and realise that there are ways of targeting specific skills and finding engaging ways to teach and acquire them. But discipline and persistence are still requisites. It really is the drive to succeed that separates the successful from the unsuccessful.
But, I also believe we need to have some broader definitions of success. Should musical success defined solely by fame and finacial success? Is every musician who doesn't have an renowned recording career a failure? Of course not, but it does seem to be the growing paradigm. We need to make distinctions between training aimed at music as a profession and music learned for the intrinsic joys and benefits it provides - true amateurism. These are not necessarily distinctions of skill, but rather of aims.
Unfortunately, some teachers reinforce unrealistic expectations by focusing on public performance rather than the acquisiting of skill and musical knowledge for its own sake. It makes me livid when I hear stories of teacher's blowing off students because they have difficulties. The stories of students being told "not to sing and just move your lips" in the choir or fake playing in the band may be cliches, but similar instances are far more common than we would like to admit. I have known teachers who have ditched students because they didn't want to spend the time and effort to find a way of teaching them. They felt the student's "lack of success" reflected on them as teachers (and they say surgeons bury their mistakes). But then what is teaching? I measure a teacher's worth by how they rise to the challenge, see potential and reach the student who learns differently or more slowly.
For myself , I will teach any student who shows a serious interest in learning, and if it doesn't come "easily" it is my job to find the appropriate approach that makes it "easier." I am also realistic enough not to blame my failures on my students' abilities.
I suppose when it comes down to it I really do divide the students into two groups: the students who want to play guitar and the students who want to learn to play guitar. That distinction will always have more weight than so-called talent.
"Being a natural born musician is about as probable as being a natural born brain surgeon or a natural born parking lot attendant."
you are probably wondering why I am so adamant about the talent myth. Well, it is because the notion of pre-ordained talent, while it may be Romantically and intuitively attractive, creates needless barriers to anyone who really wants to participate in creative activities, be it music or anything else, but who isn't necessarily a "quick study." It also lets a lot of people, many of them teachers, off the hook.
Ascribing musical achievement primarily to talent is troubling because it discounts the hours of dedication and hard work that goes into achieving success: hours of study and practice EVERY successful musician must put in. The inference is that "talent" gives one a sort free pass to success and it's virtually pointless for the so-called "lesser talented" or "untalented" student to even make an attempt.
The truth is that motivation and discipline are far more important than so-called talent. There is no prerequisite talent level attached to 10,000-hour rule: it reflects motivation and commitment. I see it consistently among my students - the students who are committed achieve more. They may take longer than others to reach their goal (often because they havea higher goal), but they do reach it and many of them exceed it. In the end, they truly enjoy the pay off more.
Let's be clear, when I say discipline and persistence, I am not advocating mindless practising. We should by now be smarter than previous generations were and realise that there are ways of targeting specific skills and finding engaging ways to teach and acquire them. But discipline and persistence are still requisites. It really is the drive to succeed that separates the successful from the unsuccessful.
But, I also believe we need to have some broader definitions of success. Should musical success defined solely by fame and finacial success? Is every musician who doesn't have an renowned recording career a failure? Of course not, but it does seem to be the growing paradigm. We need to make distinctions between training aimed at music as a profession and music learned for the intrinsic joys and benefits it provides - true amateurism. These are not necessarily distinctions of skill, but rather of aims.
Unfortunately, some teachers reinforce unrealistic expectations by focusing on public performance rather than the acquisiting of skill and musical knowledge for its own sake. It makes me livid when I hear stories of teacher's blowing off students because they have difficulties. The stories of students being told "not to sing and just move your lips" in the choir or fake playing in the band may be cliches, but similar instances are far more common than we would like to admit. I have known teachers who have ditched students because they didn't want to spend the time and effort to find a way of teaching them. They felt the student's "lack of success" reflected on them as teachers (and they say surgeons bury their mistakes). But then what is teaching? I measure a teacher's worth by how they rise to the challenge, see potential and reach the student who learns differently or more slowly.
For myself , I will teach any student who shows a serious interest in learning, and if it doesn't come "easily" it is my job to find the appropriate approach that makes it "easier." I am also realistic enough not to blame my failures on my students' abilities.
I suppose when it comes down to it I really do divide the students into two groups: the students who want to play guitar and the students who want to learn to play guitar. That distinction will always have more weight than so-called talent.
"Being a natural born musician is about as probable as being a natural born brain surgeon or a natural born parking lot attendant."
RSS Feed